My personal take on this is that while Law (legal) issues and Civil Rights issues have a political import, they are not politics directly. To me, politics is about the people in politics, their views, their proposals, party platforms, etc., and the interactions they engage in. In other words, what they are doing today, and proposing to do in the future, and especially the why.

How does one divorce the one from the other? Isn't that the very thinking that got us the 1994 AWB? We knew what Clinton was about; and what he was about became the law. We all suffered the result, the Congress saw a major changeover; and the author of the disaster, Bill Clinton, acknowledged the Democrat defeat was due to the 1994 AWB.

Are we to wait for the laws to be enacted before we discuss them; or are we allowed to discuss ways to prevent them from being enacted?

The laws come about, constitutionally, by those elected to do so. The differential is law created outside of the constitution by apppointed bureaucrats in departments such as the EPA. Look at the disaster that Carol Browner caused when she created regulation -- ala law -- which included "particulate matter" in pollutants. Particulate matter includes pollen and windblown dust. Every city that was in compliance with EPA regulations went out of compliance overnight with the stroke of a pen by an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat.

These bureaucrats are political appointments for no other than political gain. They create law through the regulatory power bestowed upon them by the politicians who appoint them.

Now ... think treasury and BATFE. They hold those same powers.

All law is politics.

__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

I submit that the difference is between policy and politics. Politics is who should be elected (or not) and therefore who gets to decide public policy. Policy is whether a law is a good idea or whether it violates the constitution. Thus, if discussion is focused on policy espoused by politicians and not on ad hominem attacks on the politicians themselves or their parties for espousing the policies, I suspect the moderators will be satisfied.

Let's take the law in CA restricting the sale of handguns that haven't passed a "safety" test. This is the test that shows that the handguns won't accidentally discharge when dropped. But the same law exempts sales to police officers even though police officers are the ones most likely to be carrying a handgun and sometimes running with it an open holster or in their hand and therefore most likely to drop a loaded handgun.

If I say that the law is bad, that's policy. If I say that the measure was not consumer protection even though proposed as such, that's a policy analysis. If I say that the lawmakers who proposed the law as a consumer protection measure were lying dogs who should be run out of office, that's politics.

Politics is who should be elected (or not) and therefore who gets to decide public policy.

Yet you just inextricably linked the two. You cannot have the one without the other because the creator is necessary for the creation of the laws by which we are governed. Without the creator of the law you cannot have the law.

Law is force; and those who create the law are the force by which they are enforced. Government, of and by itself, is force.

Laws are created by several factors:

Need;
Desire;
Control;
Greed;
Emotion.

Need is the laws created to uphold order among the populace. The laws against murder, theft, etc are among these.

Desire is the law that comes to being because someone felt they were wronged and immediately cried "There oughta be a law!" Barking dogs, urinating cats, unmowed lawns, etc fall under this category.

Control is the law which is set in place for no other reason than the control of the populace. Park your unregistered car on your own property where it can be seen from the street and we will come and take it away.

Greed is the law which requires the tithing to the government for various and sundry reasons. Red light cameras are a good example. They are placed for revenue enhancement and not for safety as they are touted.

Emotion covers most laws in place and which the words "Its for the children" or some other such pap is fed to the populace. The CA assault weapon law was set in place in the emotional aftermath of a certain Mr. Purdy. Emotion will rule the day; and the rest of us will rue the day. Port Moresby and Dunblane are foreign examples.

In every case, the populace sits and waits and in today's world the attitude is "What can I do? They are going to do as they please anyway regardless of my opinion to the contrary."

Raising the clarion call after the laws are enacted is just begging for cliches like horses and barn doors, etc.

__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

They are indeed linked but not inextricably (at least not in this forum, I suspect).

You can't have (mass-produced) guns without a factory, but you can discuss the gun without discussing the factory it came from.

And even if the two were inextricably linked, there's a lot you can say about a chicken even if you can't discuss the egg it came from.

No one suggested raising a clarion call after laws are enacted. Pending legislation invites policy analysis, and I take it that's fair game for this forum. I also take it that attacking the intelligence and honesty of the proponents of the legislation is out of bounds here, in this forum (but not elsewhere).

I also take it that acting as a clarion, calling on readers to write, call, and email their legislators pro or con on legislation is also political. Again, there is no question you can do that, but just not in this one particular forum.

I assume, but willl leave to the mods to say definitively, that one is permitted by the rules of this forum to conclude one's analysis of a pending bill or existing law with the opinion that the bill or law is flawed and should not be enacted or should be amended or repealed. Assuming that to be the case, I further assume that the call to action by fellow TFLers and the alert to the electorate must go out in another forum (and certainly may do so outside TFL altogether).

The world at large is a pretty big forum and the limitation on discussion of politics here (in this one forum) is a minor restriction that promotes the flow of discussion of policy.

You can't have (mass-produced) guns without a factory, but you can discuss the gun without discussing the factory it came from.

To continue with your analogy, if you are discussing a product, that's fine. If you are trying to anticipate what other products might be forthcoming, then you have to look at the factory that produced it in order to determine what it's history is, it's philosophies, etc. The former approach deals strictly with the hear and now, while the latter deals with the future. In terms of the forum, the former approach only allows one to react to proposed legislation, while the latter deals with anticipated legislation and potential avenues of attack.

If you are looking at the intelligence and character of the legislator, you have an issue. If you are not looking at the identity and history of the legislator, you have an equally big, if different, issue.

As far as actual political action goes, I would like to think that anyone who posts in this section, would know how to take the appropriate political action, after discussing the analysis of a particular piece of proposed legislation.

I would like to think that... But it never ceases to amaze me how many folks don't have a clue as to what to do. We may end up tweaking that "rule" a bit. As this particular forum is experimental, we'll just have to see what happens.

They are indeed linked but not inextricably (at least not in this forum, I suspect).

While I agree with the rest of your premises in the post, there is an inextricable oneness to laws and politics. The Supreme Law of the Land was created by people who had suffered under prior laws they disagreed with. They became politicians to change this; and they did.

I think that where the forum demands separation of the politics is in the analysis of the politicians and parties themselves. "That d---ed <insert name> always votes with the <insert party> because he is a party hack." far differs from <Insert name> could be the deciding vote which sways the <passage/defeat> of <insert bill>."

True, there are partisan bills which are hoisted by one party or another; but that is within the scope of the original intent. The planks of the party platform are always clearly stated. The Founders purposely created a partisan, adversarial government and called it the "Great Experiment". The great debate continues to this day.

__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

My personal take on this is that while Law (legal) issues and Civil Rights issues have a political import, they are not politics directly. To me, politics is about the people in politics, their views, their proposals, party platforms, etc., and the interactions they engage in. In other words, what they are doing today, and proposing to do in the future, and especially the why.

We have agreed that a certain amount of political discussion cannot be avoided, and I think proposed legislation falls squarely into that category. What we need to avoid is personal attacks and value judgements on the reasoning of the legislators. As noted that are lots of other places for that.

Policy is another issue, and one that has tremendous legal repercussions. Again, I believe we can discuss various policies without resorting to giving our personal opinions of the individuals who create and implement that policy. For example, I have a very specific personal opinion of those individuals who created BATF policy that lets them define a single firearms part measuring less than 2"x2" as a machine gun, all by itself, but you will not read that opinion here.

Remember, pointing out the mud on someone else's fins does not improve your own swimming.

__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

So the likes of Charles Schumer, who has stated that his goal is to hammer firearms into submission on an anvil, is out of bounds until he actually brings out the anvil?

You don't have to make "personal attacks and value judgements on the reasoning of the legislators" if the reasoning is out in the open and being bragged about daily by the legislator. All you need do is spread the truth using their own words and, if possible, in their own voice.

How is posting that very public declaration for the purusal of those who gather here, especially the lurkers who may be unaware of it and come here seeking knowledge, a personal attack or value judgement?

I am just saying that one must know one's enemies -- intimately -- if one is to defeat them. Taking the enemy off the table does not take them off of the battlefield.

That opinion stated, I am finished. Moving on.

__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

What this particular example suggests (to me at least!) is that the activities and proposals of Mr. Schumer as a lawmaker would be of particular interest for dispassionate analysis in this forum.

Has anyone compiled a list of incumbent lawmakers who've made statements like this? Is anyone tracking those people in particular, on an ongoing basis, as to their 2nd-amendment-related lawmaking initiatives and voting choices?

Mainly, I'd like to look over such data in a methodical way. It would surely also provide ample grist for this mill of ours.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.